beerguy55

My interpretation of the comment is it's a never/always thing - once you get a base and once the pitcher takes the rubber you can NEVER go back to a previous base....however, the Close Call Sports analysis wonders if this only applies while the pitcher is in said pitching position...if they disengage does the rule no longer apply? https://www.closecallsports.com/2013/04/solution-for-case-play-2013-03-segura.html I had thought the OBR comment was added in response to the Segura play...I'm guessing now that they just missed/kicked it. But who knows?

In the OP the runner started the play at third base, he can't return to second. (I'm guessing it's abandonment, but not sure - maybe it's just plain old running in reverse order to confuse the defense) Found it, under 5.06(a)(1): Rule 5.06(a)/5.06(c) Comment: If a runner legally acquires title to a base, and the pitcher assumes his pitching position, the runner may not return to a previously occupied base.

I'm pretty sure OBR they made a modification a few years ago (I can't find the language) due to play that happened in a MLB game, where R2 thought he was put out, and then went to return to the first base dugout, and then realizing he wasn't out stopped at first base. You may not return to a base prior to the one you occupy at time of pitch. What I'm not clear on is how it is administered...is it treated as abandonment, or does the play stay live until someone tags the runner who is standing on a base he can't occupy?

Don't do this - you've now made it about you...by saying this you're telling the coach that you've made a decision to punish/not reward the defense, and that you have a choice to score the run or not. No - the rule is the rule. You couldn't reward them if you wanted to. The run scored before the third out was made. Period. If you want to make it a teachable moment and let the coach know his player can complete the appeal by touching the base, I think that's fine in the appropriate environment and tone - provided the coach is open to learning/listening.

Yes. Tag up appeals are always time plays. If R3 scores before R1 is put out the run counts. Defensive coach gets smacked in the head for poor coaching.

Yeah, and earlier in the thread you were claiming that an intentional drop that was guided to the ground was considered a catch - HINT: it is not - if you look back you will see that I am the one who first said to you that we were talking about two different things. That Evans was talking about a caught ball that was then dropped, and I (and likely the OP) was talking about a dropped ball that was never caught. I very carefully read Evans' answer and pointed it out to you. You still argued it, and tried to claim that an uncaught ball guided to the ground was actually a catch that required a tag up - HINT: it is not. You've then chosen to pretend that little exchange never happened and want to point out that Evans is talking about an actual catch, which was my point in the first place. And yes, on an actual catch the runners must tag up. Now you're being obstinate. If he touches the batted ball and then drops it (ie. never completes a catch) ON PURPOSE is the standard. Touching a line drive that flies by into left field is under no reasonable viewpoint an intentional drop. If you're unable to judge which is which find another hobby. On an IFF, an uncaught ball touched and intentionally guided to the ground is not considered a catch and under no circumstances are the runners required to tag up on this, or any other, uncaught ball. On a R1+ situation with under two out, where IFF is not in play, if an infielder touches a batted ball in flight and purposefully drops it, the intentional drop rule is to be enforced. So, in short, Tom...just stop. You're embarrassing yourself now. Do you come here to learn or not? Accept that you are wrong and you have made a mistake, and learn from it. Don't be stubborn and continue to take incorrect information to the field and exacerbate things by repeating the same mistakes on the field.

So, in your example - are you going to wait for the entire play to play out to see if he succeeded? That's not the standard, any more than you are required to wait for a DP to happen to call an IFF. If you really want to wait a beat and see if it fires off his shoulder and goes into LF, OK, I can see that and see you judging there was no intent. If that ball was hit that hard I doubt there was any intent to drop anyway. But if you see him intentionally knock the ball to his feet, and then wait further to see if he accidentally kicks the ball away, you're not administering the play correctly. As soon as that ball drops to his feet, and you know that he did it on purpose, the play is over. You don't need to wait to see if he pulled off the DP or TP before making your ruling. You don't even need to see if he is able to pick up the ball. Kill the play to stop the circus act. Once in a blue moon the defense will get a free out...just like once in a blue moon the defense gets a free out on an IFF. The reason for the touch requirement of the rule is, TYPICALLY, if you can get your glove/hand/body on a fly ball/soft line drive you can direct the ball to a place nearby where you can do something with it. When you are letting a ball fall untouched to the ground you're still at the mercy of the spin off the bat and the ball could veer away from you. You are taking a greater risk in letting the ball land untouched (much more often than not - this is not an absolute, I'm simply talking about percentages - touching the ball and letting it fall to the ground uncaught is a much higher percentage play than letting it fall untouched). And again, unless there is some other guidance/interpretation, the intentional drop rule 5.09(a)(12) specifically addresses dropping a ball in flight, a batted ball...it does not address a ball being dropped after it has been caught. Considering the rule falls under the "the batter is out when" section. If the ball has actually been caught then the batter is out for that fact - 5.09(a)(1). At that point it is up to the ump to communicate the catch effectively...no differently than if the fielder had made the catch and then unintentionally dropped the ball. (in both scenarios the runner is in the same boat, not sure what they need to do, without an umpire being big and loud) EDITORIAL: if you wish to judge that the ball was never caught, but dropped on purpose, and kill the play under 5.09(a)(12), who am I to argue...it's your judgment. The criteria for determining that a ball has been intentionally dropped is pretty straightforward...did the fielder touch the batted ball and did they let it fall to the ground, uncaught, on purpose. That's it that's all. And under no circumstances is that considered a catch.

With R1+ and less than two out this would be an intentional drop (assuming not IFF) - time, batter out, runners return. Line drive, or fly ball, doesn't matter. If you determine the fielder did this for the purposes of letting the ball fall to the ground (ie. they could/should have caught it) it's an intentional drop, provided they touch it. If all else is the same, but IFF is called, this would simply be an uncaught ball - it would not be considered a catch, because it wasn't caught, and runners would not have to tag up (and advance at their own peril).

Now you're changing your argument. Or you don't realize a very simple point. You can intentionally drop a ball without ever catching it. And you can do so to entice base runners to advance, whether they need to or not. THAT is what the intentional drop rule is for (specific to R1+ scenarios). The standard for the rule is whether you TOUCH the ball (not catch it). You can let it fall untouched, then the rule doesn't apply. If you touch it, with the intent of not catching it, the rule does apply (except IFF). If you catch it, then it is caught. The intentional drop rule is also pretty clear (at least in language) that it is talking about dropping a ball in flight...not a caught ball. (12)  An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases; APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the Infield Fly rule applies

No it is not. Not in any definition of "caught" or "catch" in the MLB rule book. Even if there is some modicum of control it still doesn't meet the definition of a catch, which requires a ball held firmly in glove or hand. Any ball that is intentionally touched by the fielder, by any body part, with the intent of letting it drop to the ground falls under the intentional drop rule. At best the fielder is directing the ball to the ground, which is why the rule exists. The batter is called out because the umpire has judged that a catch COULD have been made (or even "should" have if you like), not that it was made. That standard is applied to both the intentional drop rule and the IFF rule. (if anything the standard is a little higher on the intentional drop rule) On the intentional drop rule Time is called because the runners seeing an uncaught ball believe they are forced to advance...and it's not practical at all to yell "Catch, catch, catch" and have them realize they need to tag up. If you're protecting the offense on an IFF then with a touched intentional drop it is simply STUPID to rule a ball has been "caught" when it is very clear to all the runners that it was not - how the F*#K are they supposed to know they need to tag up. Now all I have to do, if the runners are a couple of steps off the bases, is have the ball hit the back of my glove, and give it a push so it rolls 30-40 feet away...the runners are going to advance, without tagging - because they see an uncaught ball rolling away from the fielder...after that it's a very easy appeal on two bases at that point and you've defeated the entire purpose of the IFF rule. It's atrocious. I can't attest to what Jim Evans interpreted because you have not shown the wording of your question. I can't attest to what he was thinking...or how he may have (mis)interpreted your question. All I know is ruling an uncaught ball a catch, and forcing the runners to tag up, is just plain wrong, and any ruling from any renowned umpire saying otherwise is incorrect. Even the best, smartest and most experience umpires make mistakes. This is either a mistake, or a misunderstanding of the question. Are you seriously suggesting that on an IFF when a fielder clearly does not catch a ball, but clearly intentionally touches it and intentionally lets it drop to the ground you are screaming "that's a catch, that's a catch!!!" You know what kind of SH*#storm you're going to create on the field?!?!?! There is zero logic behind it. None.

Different situation, presumably. The OP appears to describe a scenario where the ball was never caught. Your situation clearly addresses a scenario where the ball was caught, and then dropped. They are two very different sets of events with two very different answers. As was stated above, any caught ball in any scenario, IFF, foul ball, line drives, etc, requires a tag up. Any uncaught ball does not. Even the "intentional drop" rule doesn't really apply to this situation. If the ball is caught, it's caught. It's no longer a batted ball. Doesn't matter if the fielder then drops the ball to the ground. IFF or not, the batter is out, the ball is live, and runners must tag up. EDIT: I can see a non-IFF scenario where an ump will kill the play anyway, and simply determine the ball was never caught, and dropped on purpose, to prevent shenanigans and protect the offense.

The same could be said for an intentional drop. I fully understand all of that. I was simply reading the intentional drop rule, which very clearly says it applies to line drives and fly balls for R1, R1/R2 and R1/R2/R3 - the second two which could be IFF situations. I just missed the part of the IFF rule that says the ball is live regardless of the intentional drop rule. The reason to declare the dead ball is to cut down on the circus activity - especially at the younger/rec levels. It also makes it easier to administer (ie. one less exception to rule upon/remember). I agree with the rule as is for the reasons you state, but wouldn't be opposed to removing the exception.

Players and coaches are publicly demoted and fired for non-performance every day. They seem to be able to handle it. I know Brian Runge was fired for violating the Drug policy. I know of no umpire since that has been fired for performance...not in the past couple of generations anyway. I'd say that is what led to MLB going "thanks" in 1999 when they all resigned.

Oops - forgot the comment on the IFF rule that says it takes precedence.

The intentional drop rule applies to any situation with less than two out with R1...including the IFF scenarios of R1/R2 or base loaded. So, on an IFF if the fielder intentionally drops the ball (ie. touches the ball and lets it fall to the ground on purpose), then the ball is dead and runners return to their bases. Even on an IFF the fielder must let the ball fall to the ground untouched to remain live (or unintentionally muff the catch).

It's a myth I've heard from coaches and players a few times over the years (not as prevalent as some of the other popular ones)...the myth goes that on an IFF runners must tag up until the ball is caught or hits the ground. I can understand how some could make that leap without reading the rule book. As stated above, untrue. Tag ups only applied to caught balls.

Any play attempt to get the runner out....not when a runner is called out.

Angel has responded by putting his best foot forward.

7.08 (a)(2) 7.10 is for Appeals - abandonment isn't an appeal play. Even then - the note simply says the point where the runner forfeits any right to return...NOT that is a prerequisite.

I see a few possibilities: 1. he noticed early that the batter was giving up, and simply went with that assumption (or even saw it out of the corner of his eye) 2. he was going to let it drop anyway to trade a fast runner for a slow runner - seeing the batter had stopped running was a nice bonus 3. he got a verbal indication from Merrifield to let it drop

Is this guidance or an interpretation? The rule in LL is almost exactly the same as MLB AFAIK. "obviously abandoning all effort to touch the next base"

Touched is touched...once the fielder touches it in any way, the only judgment to apply here is whether or not there was intent.

Yes, this is enough to call abandonment. It would have been more fun if he didn't quite reach first when he decided to go back...then there would have been the chaos Lindsay had hoped for. Alien abduction?

I'll add to that - computers don't fix bad processes, they make them fail faster. Agree 100% - the strike zone should follow a challenge process and that's as far as it should go - I don't care if it's ten challenges per game per team, or whatever number they come up with, but everybody (even pitchers) will hate the entire game called by a computer.

Why would it only measure at the front of the plate? It's supposed to be measuring a 3D representation of the plate - front, back, sides, top, bottom. If it doesn't do that wtf are we doing here? These jackasses should be swinging. As the ump, I think I'm giving the universal symbol for "my earphones aren't working" and then calling a bunch of strikes.